![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've added his appearance in the 5th edition, and part of the lore mentioned in the swords coast adventurer's handbook. It is in page 118, under the headline "The mark of Asmodeus" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.49.239 ( talk) 22:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and deleted the part of the article that claimed that Jazirian's background as an aspect of the World Serpent was canonically questionable. There were two 2e books, "Monster Mythology", and the Forgotten Realms supplement "Powers and Pantheons", which established that Jazirian was an aspect of the World Serpent. So, the World Serpent origin for Jazirian was clearly around long before "Serpent Kingdoms". Zigra ( talk) 00:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Zigra
The question of canonicity isn't so much related to the Monster Mythology and P&P take on Jazirian and the World Serpent, but the association of that motif/mythology with the entirely seperate Guide to Hell use of Asmodeus and Jazirian.
The material regarding Jazirian as an aspect of the World Serpent doesn't have any real connection to the material claiming Asmodeus and Jazirian as a dualistic LE/LG pairing. In fact the original World Serpent sources you mention also IIRC have other serpentine gods and entities like Mershaulk and Shekinster as aspects of a putative World Serpent, which doesn't mesh at all with GtH's later use.
That said, I agree with your edit actually, but looking at it a bit more, I'd suggest removing those lines it applies to entirely, because the material doesn't have a connection to the GtH Asmodeus/Jazirian mythos; it's its own seperate mythos entirely that just happens to include Jazirian (but pointedly, not Asmodeus). Before I make an edit though, I'm curious about your take on the issue, and anyone else for that matter. Shemeska ( talk) 03:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your assessment, Shemeska. I just didn't like the way that part of the article had been worded because for two reasons- 1) it made the not-so-subtle implication that the World Serpent story of Jazirian's origins was non-canon to 2e Dungeons and Dragons in general and 2) whoever wrote that bit sounded as if they were unaware that there were two major 2e books which supported the World Serpent backstory for Jazirian, and that it wasn't just invented for 3rd Edition.
What I'd propose is pointing out that there is an alternate story for Jazirian's origins that conflicts with the story of Asmodeus and Jazirian as twins, and that it is uncertain which is the truth, or if they should be considered seperate coninuities in D&D material. Zigra ( talk) 05:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Zigra
I've changed the wording "Ninth Plane of Hell" to the "Ninth Layer of Hell". Hell is the plane, which just happens to have nine layers. - DDSaeger
Do we really need the blurb at the top of this article? "For the Judeo-Christian demon, see Asmodai." After all, anyone searching for that subject will probably never use "Asmodeus (Dungeons & Dragons)" as a search term. It seems to be little more than clutter at this point.-- Robbstrd 01:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I've added a dab link back to certain articles in an attempt to stave off a content dispute with JarlaxleArtemis ( talk · contribs), who feels the target articles are potentially useful to readers. I'm open to other suggestions – maybe a see also, or a section (if we can find sources) explaining how the D&D names are derived from/inspired by preexisting terms. -- Muchness 01:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Why is there still a request for sources tag at the start of the article? Does anyone feel that the Book of Vile Darkness, Codex of the Nine Hells, and other sources aren't enough? Those two books are, I believe, the primary source of info on Asmodeus in D&D 3rd edition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halloween jack ( talk • contribs) 02:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the trouble are the notability guidelines, which demand secondary sources (i. e. not the gaming products themselves). If these guidelines were strictly applied, I fear that an immense number of articles dealing with persons or objects in fiction would be deleted. I have included a source [1] that uses Asmodeus as one example of an evil Christian mythologic figure that gave rise to criticism of D&D. I wonder if this is enough to satisfy the notability requirement. Maybe the Dragon Magazine has articles about Asmodeus' importance for D&D (instead of in-game details only)? Daranios 14:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Asmodeus just happens to be a combination of two latin words. These words are deus, which means "god", and asmo, which means I "". If you know the principal parts of asmo, or what it means, please visit my talk page: hereI think the origins of the name should be posted in the article, but I can't edit it because I don't know what asmo means. The Beatles Fan ( talk) 19:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken books like Guide to Hell claim that Asmodeus' rod is a solid ruby rod, rather than a ruby tipped one, can anyone confirm? 4.242.174.103 ( talk) 00:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I got rid of that nonsensical banner bitching about the style being too "in-universe". I realise that there are more than a few wikipedia users who would love to see everything they see as, god forbid, "nerdy" purged from this site, but I remind them that it's well within their rights to not read articles like this. Anyway, it's silly to demand that in every article about Star Trek, the X Files, or AD&D, every other sentence remind the reader that they're reading about something fictional. The beginning of this article very clearly states that Asmodeus is lord of Nessus and king of all baatezu IN THE DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS ROLE PLAYING GAME UNIVERSE. I don't think any seminary student is in danger of turning in a paper about the threat Asmodeus, Demogorgon, or the General of Gehenna pose to the Church :P. 174.62.230.28 ( talk) 23:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I didn't delete anything, but starting the article with "is a fictional character" seems about as clear as you could get to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.170.111.229 ( talk) 20:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
With all respect, TheRedPenOfDoom, I don't believe it serves any useful purpose to place multiple tags on the article. One general tag, indicating multiple problems, ought to be sufficient. Discussing the article's problems on the talk page would be more helpful than placing a massive wall of tags at the start of the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 02:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)